Advertisement

Planta

, Volume 250, Issue 5, pp 1603–1612 | Cite as

Identification of the phytosulfokine receptor 1 (OsPSKR1) confers resistance to bacterial leaf streak in rice

  • Wei Yang
  • Baogang Zhang
  • Guanghui Qi
  • Luyue Shang
  • Haifeng Liu
  • Xinhua DingEmail author
  • Zhaohui ChuEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

Main conclusion

A rice allele of PSKR1 functioning in resistance to bacterial leaf streak was identified.

Abstract

Phytosulfokine (PSK), a disulfated pentapeptide encoded by precursor genes that are ubiquitously present in higher plants, belongs to the group of plant peptide growth factors. The PSK receptor PSKR1 in Arabidopsis thaliana is an active kinase and has guanylate cyclase activity resulting in dual-signaling outputs. Here, the LOC_Os02g41890 out of three candidates completely rescued root growth and susceptible to Pseudomonas syringae pv. DC3000 in the Arabidopsis pskr1-3 mutant and was identified as OsPSKR1. This protein was localized to plasma membrane similar to AtPSKR1. The expression of OsPSKR1 was upregulated upon inoculation with RS105, a strain of Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzicola (Xoc) that cause bacterial leaf streak in rice. OsPSKR1 overexpression (OE) lines had greater resistance to RS105 than the wild type. Consistently, the expression of pathogenesis-related genes involved in the salicylic acid (SA) pathway was upregulated in the transgenic lines. Overall, OsPSKR1 functions as a candidate PSK receptor and regulates resistance to Xoc by activating the expression of pathogenesis-related genes involved in the SA pathway in rice.

Keywords

Bacterial leaf streak Defense-related gene Phytohormones Phytosulfokine Rice 

Abbreviations

BLS

Bacterial leaf streak

GFP

Green fluorescent protein

JA

Jasmonic acid

PSK

Phytosulfokine

PSKR

Phytosulfokine receptor

Pst

Pseudomonas syringae

SA

Salicylic acid

Xoc

Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzicola

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (31872925, 31700219), the Natural Science Fund for Outstanding Young Scholars of Shandong Province (JQ201807), the Shandong Modern Agricultural Technology & Industry system (SDAIT-17-06).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical standard

The authors declare that the experiments comply with the laws of China.

Supplementary material

425_2019_3238_MOESM1_ESM.docx (13 kb)
Table S1 The primers used in this study (DOCX 12 kb)
425_2019_3238_MOESM2_ESM.tif (179 kb)
Suppl. Fig. S1 a Scheme of AtPSKR1 mutations. b The pskr1-3 (SALK_008585) mutant identified by PCR (TIFF 178 kb)
425_2019_3238_MOESM3_ESM.tif (62 kb)
Suppl. Fig. S2 PSK-induced increases in root length require AtPSKR1. Col-0 and pskr1-3 were grown on vertical MS-agar with or without 10 nM PSK, and the root length was recorded after 14 days (TIFF 61 kb)
425_2019_3238_MOESM4_ESM.tif (153 kb)
Suppl. Fig. S3 Identification of the OsPSKR1 transgenic rice lines. a Relative expression levels of OsPSKR1 in 3 identified T1 transgenic plants. OsActin was used as an internal control. Bars represent the means (three replicates for gene expression) ± SD. b Immunoblot analysis of total protein extracts separated by SDS-PAGE and probed with antibodies against Myc flag (α-Myc). The stained Rubisco protein show equal protein samples uploaded. The immunoblot band reflects PSKR1 protein of about 110 kD (TIFF 152 kb)
425_2019_3238_MOESM5_ESM.tif (973 kb)
Suppl. Fig. S4 Effects of PSK application on rice leaves. Three-week-old seedlings of wild-type ZH11 were treated with water, 1 nM and 10 nM PSK, and the data were recorded one month later. a Root length. b Plant height (TIFF 972 kb)
425_2019_3238_MOESM6_ESM.tif (222 kb)
Suppl. Fig. S5 Relative expression levels of PSK1, PSK4, PSK7 in 3 identified T1 transgenic plants post Xoc inoculation. OsActin was used as an internal control. Bars represent the means (three replicates for gene expression) ± SD (TIFF 221 kb)
425_2019_3238_MOESM7_ESM.tif (291 kb)
Suppl. Fig. S6 a Lesion lengths of the overexpression transgenic plants which pre-treat with 10 nM PSK. “*” indicates significant differences (t test, P < 0.05, n = 8); NS, not significant. b Relative expression levels of PR1a, PR8, PAL in the identified T1 transgenic plants pre-treat with 10 nM PSK. OsActin was used as an internal control. Bars represent the means (three replicates for gene expression) ± SD (TIFF 291 kb)
425_2019_3238_MOESM8_ESM.tif (129 kb)
Suppl. Fig. S7 Relative expression levels of IAA1, ARF8 in 3 identified T1 transgenic plants post Xoc inoculation. OsActin was used as an internal control. Bars represent the means (three replicates for gene expression) ± SD (TIFF 128 kb)

References

  1. Chen S, Songkumarn P, Liu J, Wang G (2009) A versatile zero background T-vector system for gene cloning and functional genomics. Plant Physiol 150:1111–1121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Clough SJ, Bent AF (1998) Floral dip: a simplified method for Agrobacterium-mediated transformation of Arabidopsis thaliana. Plant J 16:735–743CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Feng C, Zhang X, Wu T, Yuan B, Ding X, Yao F, Chu Z (2016) The polygalacturonase-inhibiting protein 4 (OsPGIP4), a potential component of the qBlsr5a locus, confers resistance to bacterial leaf streak in rice. Planta 243:1297–1308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Fu J, Liu H, Li Y, Yu H, Li X, Xiao J, Wang S (2011) Manipulating broad-spectrum disease resistance by suppressing pathogen induced auxin accumulation in rice. Plant Physiol 155:589–602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Glazebrook J (2005) Contrasting mechanisms of defense against biotrophic and necrotrophic pathogens. Annu Rev Phytopathol 43:205–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Guo L, Li M, Wang W, Wang L, Hao G, Guo C, Chen L (2012) Overexpression in the nucleotide-binding site-leucine rich repeat gene DEPG1 increase susceptibility to bacterial leaf streak disease in transgenic rice plants. Mol Biol Rep 39:3491–3504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Guo L, Guo C, Li M, Wang W, Luo C, Zhang Y, Chen L (2014) Suppression of expression of the putative receptor-like kinase gene NRRB enhances resistance to bacterial leaf streak in rice. Mol Biol Rep 41:2177–2187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hartmann J, Fischer C, Dietrich P, Sauter M (2014) Kinase activity and calmodulin binding are essential for growth signaling by the phytosulfokine receptor PSKR1. Plant J 78:192–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hohmann U, Lau K, Hothorn M (2017) The structural basis of ligand perception and signal activation by receptor kinases. Annu Rev Plant Biol 68:109–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Holzwart E, Huerta AI, Glöckner N, Gómez BG, Wanke F, Augustin S, Askani JC, Schürholz AK, Harter K, Wolf S (2018) BRI1 controls vascular cell fate in the Arabidopsis root through RLP44 and phytosulfokine signaling. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 115:11838–11843CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hutin M, Césari S, Chalvon V, Michel C, Tran TT, Boch J, Koebnik R, Szurek B, Kroj T (2016) Ectopic activation of the rice NLR heteropair RGA4/RGA5 confers resistance to bacterial blight and bacterial leaf streak diseases. Plant J 88:43–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Igarashi D, Tsuda K, Katagiri F (2012) The peptide growth factor, phytosulfokine, attenuates pattern-triggered immunity. Plant J 71:194–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ju Y, Tian H, Zhang R, Zuo L, Jin G, Xu Q, Ding X, Li X, Chu Z (2017) Overexpression of OsHSP18.0-CI enhances resistance to bacterial leaf streak in rice. Rice 10:12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Komori R, Amano Y, Ogawa-Ohnishi M, Matsubayashi Y (2009) Identification of tyrosylprotein sulfotransferase in Arabidopsis. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106:15067–15072CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kutschmar A, Rzewuski G, Stührwohldt N, Beemster GT, Inzé D, Sauter M (2009) PSK-α promotes root growth in Arabidopsis. New Phytol 181:820–831CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kwezi L, Ruzvidzo O, Wheeler JI, Govender K, Iacuone S, Thompson PE, Gehring C, Irving HR (2011) The phytosulfokine (PSK) receptor is capable of guanylate cyclase activity and enabling cyclic GMP-dependent signaling in plants. J Biol Chem 286:22580–22588CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ladwig F, Dahlke RI, Stührwohldt N, Hartmann J, Harter K, Sauter M (2015) Phytosulfokine regulates growth in Arabidopsis through a response module at the plasma membrane that includes CYCLIC NUCLEOTIDE-GATED CHANNEL17, H+-ATPase, and BAK1. Plant Cell 27:1718–1729CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lin Y, Zhang Q (2005) Optimizing the tissue culture conditions for high efficiency transformation of indica rice. Plant Cell Rep 23:540–547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Liu H, Zhang B, Wu T, Ding Y, Ding X, Chu Z (2015) Copper ion elicits defense response in Arabidopsis thaliana by activating salicylate-and ethylene-dependent signaling pathways. Mol Plant 8:1550–1553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Matsubayashi Y (2014) Posttranslationally modifed small-peptide signals in plants. Annu Rev Plant Biol 65:385–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Matsubayashi Y, Sakagami Y (1996) Phytosulfokine, sulfated peptides that induce the proliferation of single mesophyll cells of Asparagus offcinalis. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 93:7623–7627CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Matsubayashi Y, Sakagami Y (2006) Peptide hormones in plants. Annu Rev Plant Biol 57:649–674CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Matsubayashi Y, Morita A, Matsunaga E, Furuya A, Hanai N, Sakagami Y (1999) Physiological relationships between auxin, cytokinin, and a peptide growth factor, phytosulfokine-α, in stimulation of asparagus cell proliferation. Planta 207:559–565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Matsubayashi Y, Ogawa M, Morita A, Sakagami Y (2002) An LRR receptor kinase involved in perception of a peptide plant hormone, phytosulfokine. Science 296:1470–1472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Matsuzaki Y, Ogawa-Ohnishi M, Mori A, Matsubayashi Y (2010) Secreted peptide signals required for maintenance of root stem cell niche in Arabidopsis. Science 329:1065–1067CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mosher S, Kemmerling B (2013) PSKR1 and PSY1R-mediated regulation of plant defense responses. Plant Signal Behav 8:e24119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mosher S, Seybold H, Rodriguez P, Stahl M, Davies KA, Dayaratne S, Morillo SA, Wierzba M, Favery B, Keller H, Tax FE, Kemmerling B (2013) The tyrosine-sulfated peptide receptors PSKR1 and PSY1R modify the immunity of Arabidopsis to biotrophic and necrotrophic pathogens in an antagonistic manner. Plant J 73:469–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Muleya V, Wheeler JI, Ruzvidzo O, Freihat L, Manallack DT, Gehring C, Irving HR (2014) Calcium is the switch in the moonlighting dual function of the ligand-activated receptor kinase phytosulfokine receptor 1. Cell Commun Signal 12:60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Müssig C, Shin GH, Altmann T (2003) Brassinosteroids promote root growth in Arabidopsis. Plant Physiol 133:1261–1271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nino-Liu DO, Ronald PC, Bogdanove AJ (2006) Xanthomonas oryzae pathovars: model pathogens of a model crop. Mol Plant Pathol 7:303–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Poulin L, Grygiel P, Magne M, Gagnevin L, Rodriguez-R LM, Serna NF, Zhao S, Rafii ME, Dao S, Tekete C, Wonni I, Koita O, Pruvost O, Verdier V, Vernière C, Koebnik R (2015) New multilocus variable-number tandem-repeat analysis tool for surveillance and local epidemiology of bacterial leaf blight and bacterial leaf streak of rice caused by Xanthomonas oryzae. Appl Environ Microb 81:688–698CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rodiuc N, Barlet X, Hok S, Perfus-Barbeoch L, Allasia V, Engler G, Séassau A, Marteu N, Almeida-Engler J, Panabières F, Abad P, Kemmerling B, Marco Y, Favery B, Keller H (2016) Evolutionarily distant pathogens require the Arabidopsis phytosulfokine signaling pathway to establish disease. Plant, Cell Environ 39:1396–1407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sauter M (2015) Phytosulfokine peptide signaling. J Exp Bot 66:5161–5169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Shen X, Yuan B, Liu H, Li X, Xu C, Wang S (2010) Opposite functions of a rice mitogen-activated protein kinase during the process of resistance against Xanthomonas oryzae. Plant J 64:86–99PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Stührwohldt N, Dahlke RI, Steffens B, Johnson A, Sauter M (2011) Phytosulfokine-α controls hypocotyl length and cell expansion in Arabidopsis thaliana through phytosulfokine receptor 1. PLoS One 6:e21054CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Tao Z, Liu H, Qiu D, Zhou Y, Li X, Xu C, Wang S (2009) A pair of allelic WRKY genes play opposite roles in rice–bacteria interactions. Plant Physiol 151:936–948CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Walter M, Chaban C, Schütze K, Oliver B, Katrin W, Christian N, Dragica B, Christopher G, Karin S, Claudia O, Klaus H, Jörg K (2004) Visualization of protein interactions in living plant cells using bimolecular fluorescence complementation. Plant J 40:428–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wang J, Li H, Han Z, Zhang H, Wang T, Lin G, Chang J, Yang W, Chai J (2015) Allosteric receptor activation by the plant peptide hormone phytosulfokine. Nature 525:265–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wu T, Kamiya T, Yumoto H, Sotta N, Katsushi Y, Shigenobu S, Matsubayashi Y, Fujiwara T (2015) An Arabidopsis thaliana copper-sensitive mutant suggests a role of phytosulfokine in ethylene production. J Exp Bot 66:3657–3667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Xu MR, Huang LY, Zhang F, Zhu LH, Zhou YL, Li ZK (2013) Genome-wide phylogenetic analysis of stress-activated protein kinase genes in rice (OsSAPKs) and expression profiling in response to Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzicola infection. Plant Mol Biol Rep 31:877–885CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Yang W, Xu X, Li Y, Wang Y, Li M, Wang Y, Ding X, Chu Z (2016) Rutin-mediated priming of plant resistance to three bacterial pathogens initiating the early SA signal pathway. PLoS One 11:e0146910CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Zhang B, Liu H, Ding X, Qiu J, Zhang M, Chu Z (2018a) Arabidopsis thaliana ACS8 plays a crucial role in the early biosynthesis of ethylene elicited by Cu2+ ions. J Cell Sci 131:jcs202424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Zhang H, Hu Z, Lei C, Zheng C, Wang J, Shao S, Li X, Xia X, Cai X, Zhou J, Zhou Y, Yu J, Foyer CH, Shi K (2018b) A plant phytosulfokine peptide initiates auxin-dependent immunity through cytosolic Ca2+ signaling in tomato. Plant Cell 30:652–667CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.State Key Laboratory of Crop Biology, College of AgronomyShandong Agricultural UniversityTai’anChina
  2. 2.Shandong Provincial Key Laboratory of Vegetable Disease and Insect Pests, College of Plant ProtectionShandong Agricultural UniversityTai’anChina
  3. 3.College of Information Science and EngineeringShandong Agricultural UniversityTai’anChina
  4. 4.College of Plant ProtectionFujian Agriculture and Forestry UniversityFuzhouPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations